Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Identifying a spell that's Stilled, Silenced and uses Eschew Materials.


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

151 to 200 of 360 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ah, I'm beginning to see what all the fuss is about now.

I still think it doesn't help the game to take away the option of stealth casting.


I agree on that point RD and if the Devs want metamagic to not do it then make a feat would be my suggestion.

Though in a future edtion i would think having the spellcraft DC higher per missing component would be a help.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Talonhawke wrote:

I agree on that point RD and if the Devs want metamagic to not do it then make a feat would be my suggestion.

Though in a future edtion i would think having the spellcraft DC higher per missing component would be a help.

Though I would be somewhat dismayed at a new "stealth casting" feat, as it would strongly hint that you cannot use Still/Silent/Eschew to hide spellcasting, I'd still be pretty excited as now I'd be able to do it with one feat rather than three.

Unless the DC goes up substantially, I wouldn't support that change. It's too easy to get Spellcraft in the stratosphere. I can't help but scoff at notions such as +2 for each missing component. Almost every spellcaster I've seen in play would still auto-pass such a DC.


Hows +5 per component sound?

As for a feat I think the one for 3.5 that allowed you to sub perfoms vs perception or sense motive were nice.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

30 + spell level to identify a spell is still too low in my opinion. Most decent spellcasters will chew through DC 39 automatically.

It should be nearly impossible to identify a spell with no signs, especially since the person Stealth Casting has invested no less than 3 feats into doing it.

Silver Crusade

Ravingdork wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
So far your side says that spells are invisible until the exact moment they are finished being cast and that means if they have no components they can't be seen.

Why would a spell have any visible manifestations at all if it is not even yet cast?

I can understand casting a spell still provoking--the caster needs to divert his attention away from defending himself to concentrate on casting the spell (unless he casts defensively, at the risk of botching the spell with the added distraction). That, however, in no way helps the case of those who oppose my belief. Noticing the person under your sword has let his guard down/seems distracted does NOT mean you know he is casting a spell.

And as DD said above, does taking away the option for stealth casting really help the game any?

Assuming a Wizard is casting a spell because he let his guard down for some reason would be metagaming, in my opinion.

Silver Crusade

Talonhawke wrote:

Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: Whether or not a spell has been enhanced by a metamagic feat does not affect its vulnerability to counterspelling or its ability to counterspell another spell (see Magic).

Once again note that Metamagic cannot make it harder to counterspell.
Making it impossible to ID means I cannot counter it.

Though i did find one feat to back you up slightly.

Secret signs lets you make a check to hide your casting of spells with only somatic components.

Howevernote that its not metamagic and not applicable to the above ruling.

Counterspells

It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell. By doing
so, you are using the spell’s energy to disrupt the casting
of the same spell by another character. Counterspelling
works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane.
How Counterspells Work: To use a counterspell,
you must select an opponent as the target of the
counterspell. You do this by choosing to ready an
action (see Combat on page 203). In doing so, you
elect to wait to complete your action until your
opponent tries to cast a spell. You may still move at
your normal speed, since ready is a standard action.
If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell,
make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level). This
Specific Exceptions: Some spells can counter other specific
spells, often those with diametrically opposed effects.
Dispel Magic as a Counterspell: You can usually use dispel
magic to counterspell another spell being cast without
needing to identify the spell being cast. Dispel magic doesn’t
always work as a counterspell (see the spell description).

Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: Whether or not
a spell has been enhanced by a metamagic feat does not
affect its vulnerability to counterspelling or its ability to
counterspell another spell (see Chapter 9).

The dilemma here is that both rules contradict themselves. Apparently when it was being written they forgot about what existed in the rules which was a major fault in 3rd edition.

A wizard standing in supernatural darkness holding a silence stone could cast a stilled, silenced,eschew material spell with no worry of being counterspelled.

The game really needs to changed and clarified.

Silver Crusade

You want to look into Spellcraft identifying a spell that has no obvious signs accompanying it? I have two thoughts on this. Many people have already mentioned part of either of both of these, so consider this partially just chiming in support for them. Anyway...

Idea 1: Psychic powers.

Idea 2: If the character witnesses or is affected by the spell, I would allow them to try it then. This is pretty obvious for Fireball and the like, but if someone tries a Charm Person on them I would still allow a Spellcraft; "That tug on my mind... I know that exact feeling. I know the precise spell and equivalents to it that yield that effect...!"

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
So far your side says that spells are invisible until the exact moment they are finished being cast and that means if they have no components they can't be seen.
Why would a spell have any visible manifestations at all if it is not even yet cast?

You mean other than the incredibly common genre tropes surrounding the idea of spellcasting? Glowing magic coalescing around a caster' hands, crackles of building energy or a "tension in the air," an increasingly roar or buzz, even changes in the local weather as the spell is cast? shrug Beyond that, there's nothing in the RAW that says one way or the other - but as I pointed out before, the RAW does say you can see a spell being cast, which implies there is something to see.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Talonhawke wrote:

Never said it was a good thing.

This is the last time I'm going to ask this then I'm gonna just wait.

Can anyone cite any rule/feat/archetype or anything to support the conclusion that said spell is impossible to ID and thus Counter?

No because there isn't any. In fact NONE of the cited feats have in their rules text any mention of modifying spellcraft DC's. If you wish to put modifiers as a DM, you can do so as a house rule. If it really burns your goat that this is so, put a FAQ button on the thread and move on. Otherwise houserule to taste.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
I still think it doesn't help the game to take away the option of stealth casting.

I still don't see how this removes the option of stealth casting. Like the feat Secret Signs even suggests, there are alternative rules. Roll Stealth versus Perception and apply bonuses/penalties vigorously. Add a tablespoon of tumeric, preheat the oven to 345 degrees... wait, lost my train of thought.

shallowsoul wrote:
The dilemma here is that both rules contradict themselves.

They're not contradicting each other, you're just not seeing or hearing the interpretations everybody is giving that follows all the rules. Actually... going back and reading what you specifically quoted, I'm not sure which lines you think are in contradiction?

Shisumo wrote:
but as I pointed out before, the RAW does say you can see a spell being cast, which implies there is something to see.

I agree with you completely and utterly about your view on this. You've been saying exactly what I've been saying. I do want to at least say that the RAW doesn't say you can see the spell. The RAW simply doesn't say otherwise either. It implies that you can because of other rules, which is different. I just want everybody to realize that their interpretation isn't any better than anybody else's. Just different and both following the RAW.


The RAW and the RAI don't always agree. I think this is one of those cases. So a GM can choose to follows the letter or the rules or the spirit of the rules. I think most people like to know the spirit of the rules since it is very hard to write the rules so well that nothing ever contradicts. The devs have said what they think the spirit of the rules are, at least for now. They might change it. They did change their mind about the empower metamagic feat.

PS:The game is not really playable by RAW and it won't be unless it is written in legalese. In short if you expect to run a RAW only game expect to be disappointed. The dead condition is evidence of that. :)


GrenMeera wrote:


Darkwing Duck wrote:
As there is nothing to see

This is the part that is not in the rules and assumed.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
I'm not overly fond of an arcane caster unable to subtly cast an illusion.

Me either! That would suck! I get the impression that you're saying that I'm implying that would happen?

Once again, if you succeed at a stealth check, in which I would create a large number of circumstance bonuses in a crowded bar, or hiding in the bushes using all the rules for perception and stealth, then you have subtly cast an illusion. Not a big deal or difficult to do.

Using a stealth roll to hide casting is not in the rules. Neither is there anything in the rules that says that there is anything to see if the caster is casting a still, silent, eschewed materials spell.


wraithstrike wrote:

The RAW and the RAI don't always agree. I think this is one of those cases. So a GM can choose to follows the letter or the rules or the spirit of the rules. I think most people like to know the spirit of the rules since it is very hard to write the rules so well that nothing ever contradicts. The devs have said what they think the spirit of the rules are, at least for now. They might change it. They did change their mind about the empower metamagic feat.

PS:The game is not really playable by RAW and it won't be unless it is written in legalese. In short if you expect to run a RAW only game expect to be disappointed. The dead condition is evidence of that. :)

I don't trust the current game designers and their RAI. There are far too many problems that they've created in the FAQ and in the later rule books, themselves.

The central question that we need to be concerned with is "what kind of game do you want to play?" Do you want a game where a caster can't subtly cast a Major Image? A Detect Lie? A Charm Person? If you dislike and want to discourage the use of subtle strategies, if you want to promote the use of "knock down door, kill stuff, loot" over deception and trickery, then use house rules that encourage it.

If, on the other hand, you like using Charisma, Deception, Illusion, etc., then use house rules that encourage that (for example, by making it possible to subtly cast a Major Image).

The only thing I want is that GMs be cognizant of the impact different house rules will have on their game.


What problems have been created other than with the monk?


wraithstrike wrote:
What problems have been created other than with the monk?

I don't see how I can answer that question without threadjacking.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Using a stealth roll to hide casting is not in the rules.

True, but using metamagic feats to hide casting is also not in the rules. The rules don't have a method to stealth cast. The RAW never mentions anything besides being invisible as a means to hide a spell, and even then you're simply hiding the spell caster, and relying on the fact that you can't target a foe with a readied action if you don't have them pinpointed and unconcealed.

As far as I can tell, the RAW doesn't give you a way to cast stealthily explicitly

Darkwin Duck wrote:
Neither is there anything in the rules that says that there is anything to see if the caster is casting a still, silent, eschewed materials spell.

Also true, but there is nothing in the rules that says that it doesn't.

I don't see why one way of interpreting the rules to allow this is necessarily so different than another.

Silver Crusade

GrenMeera wrote:


They're not contradicting each other, you're just not seeing or hearing the interpretations everybody is giving that follows all the rules. Actually... going back and reading what you specifically quoted, I'm not sure which lines you think are in contradiction?

Shisumo wrote:
but as I pointed out before, the RAW does say you can see a spell being cast, which implies there is something to see.
I agree with you completely and utterly about your view on this. You've been saying exactly what I've been saying. I do want to at least say that the RAW doesn't say you can see the spell. The RAW simply doesn't say otherwise either. It implies that you can because of other rules, which is different. I just want everybody to realize that their interpretation isn't any better than anybody else's. Just different and both following the RAW.

They do contradict each other. I have posted both of them so please go and read.

You are misquoting Shisumo, the way you see a spell being cast are the Somatic and Material components which Shisumo has mentioned along with a lot of other people. Verbal is what's used to hear the spell being cast. You are purposely ignoring the RAW.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
the way you see a spell being cast are the Somatic and Material components which Shisumo has mentioned along with a lot of other people. Verbal is what's used to hear the spell being cast. You are purposely ignoring the RAW.

No, the RAW doesn't say this. You can't post a single sentence from any of the books that say that you see a spell being cast only through the somatic, material, and verbal components.

I'm not ignoring the RAW. In fact, you often keep saying things are in the RAW that are not.

Let's try this another way since you often ignore all of what I say. RAW. They are "rules as written". So here's what I'm challenging you to do:

Post a sentence from the books that says that you only see the spell through the components. Say nothing else. Don't add in your interpretation, or your logic. Just post RAW.

With how often you ignore my pleas for consistency or respect of the RAW versus RAI, I am really beginning to wonder if you simply created this post to troll.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Shisumo wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Why would a spell have any visible manifestations at all if it is not even yet cast?
You mean other than the incredibly common genre tropes surrounding the idea of spellcasting?Glowing magic coalescing around a caster' hands, crackles of building energy or a "tension in the air," an increasingly roar or buzz, even changes in the local weather as the spell is cast?

Also, you are misquoting Shisumo very poorly indeed when you say that he says you only see a spell through the components.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah, I'm pretty much saying the opposite, Shallow. Sorry.

Silver Crusade

Shisumo wrote:
Yeah, I'm pretty much saying the opposite, Shallow. Sorry.

Sorry mistook you for Hobbun.

Silver Crusade

GrenMeera wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
the way you see a spell being cast are the Somatic and Material components which Shisumo has mentioned along with a lot of other people. Verbal is what's used to hear the spell being cast. You are purposely ignoring the RAW.

No, the RAW doesn't say this. You can't post a single sentence from any of the books that say that you see a spell being cast only through the somatic, material, and verbal components.

I'm not ignoring the RAW. In fact, you often keep saying things are in the RAW that are not.

Let's try this another way since you often ignore all of what I say. RAW. They are "rules as written". So here's what I'm challenging you to do:

Post a sentence from the books that says that you only see the spell through the components. Say nothing else. Don't add in your interpretation, or your logic. Just post RAW.

With how often you ignore my pleas for consistency or respect of the RAW versus RAI, I am really beginning to wonder if you simply created this post to troll.

RAW backs me up in that regard. Please find me a rule in the book that says otherwise.

PS: Lack there of is not the same. Spell visuals while casting are no where to be found, you are making up assumptions to try and back you up.

The "only" thing that can back up anything you say is this:

Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: Metamagic feats
are not taken into account when determining whether a
spell can be countered.

Apparently the designers forgot that Silent, Still and Eschew Materials existed.

What it all comes down to is the designers made a mistake in this regard. In 3.5 it was clear that you couldn't counterspell or identify in this situation but whether they did at creation or not, the designers of Pathfindet didn't change it enough to have the rule as they intended. It has nothing to do with this imaginary rule about spells having some kind of imaginary visual light show that you keep claiming happens during spellcasting.


Obviously, when a caster casts a spell, its always supposed to create, as a side effect, a Seusian marching band that will require two full days to finish its procession across the battlefield. This is obvious because RAW never states that such a marching band doesn't appear. With an appropriate stealth check, its a Seusian ninja marching band.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
RAW backs me up in that regard. Please find me a rule in the book that says otherwise.

I never claimed the RAW proved my perspective. I have only said that my perspective works alongside of RAW, as does yours.

RAW does not back you up.

As far as I can tell, you refuse to accept my challenge to post RAW that does what you claim.

If you can't post RAW that says what you are saying, then, for the third time, please stop saying that the RAW proves you right. This kind of mentality really throws people who are new to the game and they are driven to believe you just because you say so. Spreading ignorance is not funny, so stop it.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Obviously, when a caster casts a spell, its always supposed to create, as a side effect, a Seusian marching band that will require two full days to finish its procession across the battlefield. This is obvious because RAW never states that such a marching band doesn't appear. With an appropriate stealth check, its a Seusian ninja marching band.

Yay!! I like your interpretation too! See? Now you get it! When the RAW leaves it open and is unclear, you can invent an interpretation that fits into the RAW to make the game fun and still not be breaking the rules.

Yours is a bit weird... but who am I to judge? It's valid under RAW, though you may want to ask a dev if that's RAI.


Actually, the spellcraft rules state there are visible effects of spells before they are finished. "You must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast". Note that it doesnt say "the caster", but "the spell".

So either this means spells themselves have visual effects as they are being cast, or they don't and then no spell can ever be id'd with spellcraft. If we assume they don't write meaningless rules, the conclusion id that spells, by RAW, (or at least the only sane interpretation of RAW) have visual effects as they are being cast.


I think they(original writers) meant see the casting of the spell. The Paizo devs don't agree with the 3.5 as to why things work the way they do which is all that really matters. I wonder what Shallow will do if this is errata'd/FAQ'd so that the devs opinions are put into actual writing?

Someone could use probably use knowledge arcana to identify the spell though.

Identify a spell effect that is in place Arcana 20 + spell level
Identify materials manufactured by magic Arcana 20 + spell level
Identify a spell that just targeted you Arcana 25 + spell level

Silver Crusade

stringburka wrote:

Actually, the spellcraft rules state there are visible effects of spells before they are finished. "You must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast". Note that it doesnt say "the caster", but "the spell".

So either this means spells themselves have visual effects as they are being cast, or they don't and then no spell can ever be id'd with spellcraft. If we assume they don't write meaningless rules, the conclusion id that spells, by RAW, (or at least the only sane interpretation of RAW) have visual effects as they are being cast.

Please show me in the Spellcraft rules that state there are visible effects as spells are being cast, besides the usual components.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:

I think they(original writers) meant see the casting of the spell. The Paizo devs don't agree with the 3.5 as to why things work the way they do which is all that really matters. I wonder what Shallow will do if this is errata'd/FAQ'd so that the devs opinions are put into actual writing?

Someone could use probably use knowledge arcana to identify the spell though.

Identify a spell effect that is in place Arcana 20 + spell level
Identify materials manufactured by magic Arcana 20 + spell level
Identify a spell that just targeted you Arcana 25 + spell level

You use Knowledge Arcana in specific ways and all lead to the spell having actually gone off. You have posted those specific examples.

If the designers actually out it in writing then hoorah but write now, as written, their rules clash with each other. I have already mentioned in an earlier post that the designers need to word like they intend it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Huh... just found something.

Core Rule book, page 207 wrote:


Counterspelling Metamagic Spells

Metamagic feats are not taken into account when determining whether a spell can be countered.

So apparently the RAW does, in fact, say that the metamagic feats do not affect counter-spelling.

How have we missed this line for so long?

Silver Crusade

stringburka wrote:

Actually, the spellcraft rules state there are visible effects of spells before they are finished. "You must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast". Note that it doesnt say "the caster", but "the spell".

So either this means spells themselves have visual effects as they are being cast, or they don't and then no spell can ever be id'd with spellcraft. If we assume they don't write meaningless rules, the conclusion id that spells, by RAW, (or at least the only sane interpretation of RAW) have visual effects as they are being cast.

Spellcraft (Int; Trained Only)

You are skilled at the art of casting spells, identifying
magic items, crafting magic items, and identifying spells
as they are being cast.
Check: Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge
and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting
a magic item comes into question. This skill is also
used to identify the properties of magic items in your
possession through the use of spells such as detect magic
and identify. The DC of this check varies depending
upon the task at hand.
Action: Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires
no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as
it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a
Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions,
and other factors. Learning a spell from a spellbook
takes 1 hour per level of the spell (0-level spells take 30
minutes). Preparing a spell from a borrowed spellbook
does not add any time to your spell preparation. Making
a Spellcraft check to craft a magic item is made as part
of the creation process. Attempting to ascertain the
properties of a magic item takes 3 rounds per item to be
identified and you must be able to thoroughly examine
the object.
Retry: You cannot retry checks made to identify a spell.
If you fail to learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll, you
must wait at least 1 week before you can try again. If you
fail to prepare a spell from a borrowed spellbook, you
cannot try again until the next day. When using detect
magic or identify to learn the properties of magic items,
you can only attempt to ascertain the properties of an
individual item once per day. Additional attempts reveal
the same results.
Special: If you are a specialist wizard, you get a +2
bonus on Spellcraft checks made to identify, learn, and
prepare spells from your chosen school. Similarly, you
take a –5 penalty on similar checks made concerning
spells from your opposition schools.
An elf gets a +2 racial bonus on Spellcraft checks to
identify the properties of magic items.
If you have the Magical Aptitude feat, you gain a bonus
on Spellcraft checks (see Chapter 5).

There is absolutely nothing there that states a spell has any sort of visual effects as it is being cast. The only rules that have anything to do with visuals of a spell being cast are it's somatic and material components, AKA "wiggling of the fingers, gestures etc...."

People keep claiming there are these supposed visual effects going on with no proof of it. Please show me any where in the books that state this, please. I have shown my proof but some of you haven't shown yours.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
Action: Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

That's what this comes down to.

You are arguing that somewhere in that sentence is an invisible "components."

There's no "proof" here. There is nothing to say that "see the spell as it is being cast" translates to "see the spell's components as the spell is begin cast." Those are different statements, and no matter how hard you try, you cannot make them be the same.

shallowsoul wrote:
The only rules that have anything to do with visuals of a spell being cast are it's somatic and material components, AKA "wiggling of the fingers, gestures etc...."

I have a dog.

Does that mean I do not also have a cat?

If I talk about seeing my cat, do you automatically assume I've mis-spoken and I mean my dog, because this is the first you've heard of my cat? Or is it not at least as likely that I do, in fact, have a cat, even though this is the first you've heard of it?

Silver Crusade

Shisumo wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Action: Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

That's what this comes down to.

You are arguing that somewhere in that sentence is an invisible "components."

There's no "proof" here. There is nothing to say that "see the spell as it is being cast" translates to "see the spell's components as the spell is begin cast." Those are different statements, and no matter how hard you try, you cannot make them be the same.

shallowsoul wrote:
The only rules that have anything to do with visuals of a spell being cast are it's somatic and material components, AKA "wiggling of the fingers, gestures etc...."

Because that is what the definition of Somatic and Material components are. There are actual rules about this under the components section. I have something in writing that actually backs me up, those arguing about these supposed "effects happening during spellcasting" has nothing to back them up and their only excuse for it is "well it doesn't say there aren't visual effects during spellcasting".

Silver Crusade

Shisumo wrote:


shallowsoul wrote:
The only rules that have anything to do with visuals of a spell being cast are it's somatic and material components, AKA "wiggling of the fingers, gestures etc...."

I have a dog.

Does that mean I do not also have a cat?

If I talk about seeing my cat, do you automatically assume I've mis-spoken and I mean my dog, because this is the first you've heard of my cat? Or is it not at least as likely that I do, in fact, have a cat, even though this is the first you've heard of it?

So that's all you got? Wow is all I can really say.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You're still making the same logical error. No one is denying that somatic and material components exist or would be visible in the casting. But that's still not the same thing as saying that there's nothing else to see, particularly when the skill itself doesn't say anything about the components - just the spell itself. That's the part you're not addressing, and where the dog/cat thing I said comes in. You're also ignoring the text of the feats, which say nothing about increasing the difficulty of identifying a spell cast with them, and the developers' own words, which flat-out say you're wrong.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GrenMeera wrote:

Core Rule book, page 207 wrote:

Counterspelling Metamagic Spells
Metamagic feats are not taken into account when determining whether a spell can be countered.
So apparently the RAW does, in fact, say that the metamagic feats do not affect counter-spelling.

How have we missed this line for so long?

Oop! Apparently the transition from work to home made me skim too quickly. My apologies to Talonhawke who has posted this point repeatedly.

shallowsoul: Your argument is essentially that the rules don't say that our interpretation is true, but your interpretation is true despite the fact that the rules specifically say it isn't? That's not how logic works.

I've said this repeatedly: We don't need rules to back up what we say. We are claiming that this is our interpretation of the rules that don't break any rules. We never once claimed that the rules prove us correct. It is a convenient way of viewing the rules that make it so that the rules are not contradictory or messy. It cleans it up, and I think adds flavor and fun to game-play.

You keep saying that you are proven correct. You are not. You are, in fact, proven wrong due to the above Counterspelling Metamagic Feats section. Your only response to being proven wrong is "That must be a typo, I'm still right and you're wrong"

Quit being a child. I've been trying to respect that you have a different interpretation for quite awhile, but you keep making it harder and harder to respect your point of view when you ignore everybody who gives you counter points. You only respond to what you think gives you an edge, and you've ignored several questions I've asked directly at you for "proving" your point.

Saying "I'm right! Neener neener neener" doesn't make you right. You are not bringing any new points to a discussion and are consistently not addressing points made against you.

As far as your last post, components of casting a spell are not the spell. Running shoes are a component to running, but they are not running itself. You can't simply take a descriptor of a verb and mean that the descriptor applies exclusively to the result of the verb. Casting a spell is not the spell. You must see the spell. The components to casting a spell are not part of a spell, they are components to casting a spell.

Silver Crusade

GrenMeera wrote:
GrenMeera wrote:

Core Rule book, page 207 wrote:

Counterspelling Metamagic Spells
Metamagic feats are not taken into account when determining whether a spell can be countered.
So apparently the RAW does, in fact, say that the metamagic feats do not affect counter-spelling.

How have we missed this line for so long?

Oop! Apparently the transition from work to home made me skim too quickly. My apologies to Talonhawke who has posted this point repeatedly.

shallowsoul: Your argument is essentially that the rules don't say that our interpretation is true, but your interpretation is true despite the fact that the rules specifically say it isn't? That's not how logic works.

I've said this repeatedly: We don't need rules to back up what we say. We are claiming that this is our interpretation of the rules that don't break any rules. We never once claimed that the rules prove us correct. It is a convenient way of viewing the rules that make it so that the rules are not contradictory or messy. It cleans it up, and I think adds flavor and fun to game-play.

You keep saying that you are proven correct. You are not. You are, in fact, proven wrong due to the above Counterspelling Metamagic Feats section. Your only response to being proven wrong is "That must be a typo, I'm still right and you're wrong"

Quit being a child. I've been trying to respect that you have a different interpretation for quite awhile, but you keep making it harder and harder to respect your point of view when you ignore everybody who gives you counter points. You only respond to what you think gives you an edge, and you've ignored several questions I've asked directly at you for "proving" your point.

Saying "I'm right! Neener neener neener" doesn't make you right. You are not bringing any new points to a discussion and are consistently not addressing points made against you.

As far as your last post, components of casting a spell are not the spell. Running shoes are a component to running, but...

Oh here we go, I'm being called a child now because I don't roll over and accept what you say. Yeah, real mature there.

I have already mentioned about the counterspell and metamagic entry but I can tell by you that you don't actually bother to read everything. This all comes from the discussion about the designers using rules that contradict each other. On one hand it says that metamagic feats are used when doing a counterspell but on the other hand you have to use Spellcraft in order to do this and Spellcraft says that you must see the spell which then brings us back to Still, Silent and Eschew Materials which eliminates your visuals and your sound.

What you and a few others are stuck on is this imaginary rule that, doesn't say, there are all these visual effects while a spell is being cast. You haven't been using the Metamagic and Counterspell argument, you have been using the whole visual when casting argument.

Here is what I have to back me up:

Sunburst
School evocation [light]; Level druid 8, sorcerer/wizard 8
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (sunstone and fire source)
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area 80-ft.-radius burst
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex partial; see text; Spell Resistance yes
Sunburst causes a globe of searing radiance to explode silently
from a point you select. All creatures in the globe are blinded
and take 6d6 points of damage. A creature to which sunlight is
harmful or unnatural takes double damage. A successful Reflex
save negates the blindness and reduces the damage by half.
An undead creature caught within the globe takes 1d6 points of
damage per caster level (maximum 25d6), or half damage if a Reflex
save is successful. In addition, the burst results in the destruction of
any undead creature specifically harmed by bright light if it fails its save.
The ultraviolet light generated by the spell deals damage to
fungi, mold, oozes, and slimes just as if they were undead creatures.
Sunburst dispels any darkness spells of lower than 9th level within
its area.

Components
A spell’s components explain what you must do or
possess to cast the spell.
The components entry in a spell
description includes abbreviations that tell you what type
of components it requires. Specifics for material and
focus components are given at the end of the descriptive
text. Usually you don’t need to worry about components,
but when you can’t use a component for some reason or
when a material or focus component is expensive, then
the components are important.
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation.
To provide a verbal component, you must be able to
speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the
incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been
deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a
verbal component that he tries to cast.
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and
precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one
hand free to provide a somatic component.
Material (M): A material component consists of one or
more physical substances or objects that are annihilated
by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost
is given for a material component, the cost is negligible.
Don’t bother to keep track of material components with
negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as
you have your spell component pouch.

Focus (F): A focus component is a prop of some sort.
Unlike a material component, a focus is not consumed
when the spell is cast and can be reused. As with
material components, the cost for a focus is negligible
unless a price is given. Assume that focus components
of negligible cost are in your spell component pouch.
Divine Focus (DF): A divine focus component is an
item of spiritual signif icance. The divine focus for a
cleric or a paladin is a holy symbol appropriate to the
character’s faith. The divine focus for a druid or a ranger
is a sprig of holly, or some other sacred plant.
If the Components line includes F/DF or M/DF, the
arcane version of the spell has a focus component or a
material component (the abbreviation before the slash)
and the divine version has a divine focus component (the
abbreviation after the slash).

Spellcraft: Action: Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires
no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as
it is being cast

Now as you can see, I have stuff from the book that actually gives my argument credit.

What do you have that gives your argument credit?

PS:Counterspelling Metamagic Spells: Whether or not
a spell has been enhanced by a metamagic feat does not
affect its vulnerability to counterspelling or its ability to
counterspell another spell (see Chapter 9).

Again, I am well aware of the above which takes us to the part about the contradiction that has already been mentioned.

Goodnight sweet prince.

Silver Crusade

Shisumo wrote:
You're still making the same logical error. No one is denying that somatic and material components exist or would be visible in the casting. But that's still not the same thing as saying that there's nothing else to see, particularly when the skill itself doesn't say anything about the components - just the spell itself. That's the part you're not addressing, and where the dog/cat thing I said comes in. You're also ignoring the text of the feats, which say nothing about increasing the difficulty of identifying a spell cast with them, and the developers' own words, which flat-out say you're wrong.

The logic here is that I have stuff in the book that actually gives my argument merit. The argument about these supposed visual effects that come with the casting of a spell is no where to be found.


You continue to fail to distinguish between 'see the spell being cast' and seeing spell components, which are not the spell.

Some of these things are not like the others; some of these things are kinda the same.

If you're going to pound the drum of RAW, you need to quit arguing an essentially RAI position when RAW fails to support your assertions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
Oh here we go, I'm being called a child now because I don't roll over and accept what you say. Yeah, real mature there.

I have never once tried to tell you to accept my interpretation of the rules. I always have been trying to get you to stop saying your interpretation IS the rules. I've pointed this out to you multiple times. You are not listening to others.

shallowsoul wrote:
which then brings us back to Still, Silent and Eschew Materials which eliminates your visuals and your sound.

As stated by the RAW, it eliminates the casting components, not the visuals or sounds of the spell. Once again, this is an assumption of yours and not the rules. I've pointed this out to you multiple times. You are not listening to others.

shallowsoul wrote:
What you and a few others are stuck on is this imaginary rule that

My interpretation is not a rule, it is an interpretation of the rules that are not against the rules. I've pointed this out to you multiple times. You are not listening to others.

shallowsoul wrote:
Again, I am well aware of the above which takes us to the part about the contradiction that has already been mentioned.

There is no contradiction. There is only a contradiction if you treat your assumptions as fact and not as assumptions. I've pointed this out to you multiple times. You are not listening to others.

shallowsoul wrote:
Now as you can see, I have stuff from the book that actually gives my argument credit.

Yes, you do have things that give your argument credit. I have things that give my argument credit, which is to say that in my interpretation there IS no contradiction and therefore the rules all work as stated.

Normally two adults can be respectful of differing opinions and understand that they could be wrong. You keep saying that your interpretation is RAW and backed up by RAW. That's. Not. True. It's your opinion, not RAW. Just like my opinion is not RAW. I repeatedly try to put us on respectful equal footing of opinions, and you repeatedly tear down the respect by ignoring what I've said and treat your answer as the one true god. This is why you're being childish.

Lantern Lodge

Talonhawke wrote:

....

Coupla things here

1. Fighters can still make AoO against still silenced eschewed spells correct? If so then based on that alone I can tell he is casting a spell.

...

I know I have skipped a bunch since this but I keep seeing this and would to ask why anyone believes the above is anywhere remotely true.

Someone who gets an AOO does not need to see anything other then an opening in defenses, no indication of the reason behind that opening is needed, and in the case of mental actions, not likely either.

AKA, if a caster casts a stilled, silent, eschewed spell then its possible all the fighter sees is that the caster left an opening in his movements for a moment. The fighter may not realize that the caster is casting even as she takes advantage of the opening.


GrenMeera wrote:

Huh... just found something.

Core Rule book, page 207 wrote:


Counterspelling Metamagic Spells

Metamagic feats are not taken into account when determining whether a spell can be countered.

So apparently the RAW does, in fact, say that the metamagic feats do not affect counter-spelling.

How have we missed this line for so long?

There is another thread similar to this one comparing spellcraft and knowledge arcana. It is in that thread. The problem is that both threads are so similar that it is easy to get confused. :)


Alitan wrote:

[b]You continue to fail to distinguish between 'see the spell being cast' and seeing spell components, which are not the spell.[/b

Some of these things are not like the others; some of these things are kinda the same.

If you're going to pound the drum of RAW, you need to quit arguing an essentially RAI position when RAW fails to support your assertions.

bump :)

Lantern Lodge

Talonhawke wrote:

I'll this on AoO

Something is making that guy lapse in his defenses. If he is just standing there when it happens then I know he isn't

Retrieving or manipulating an item in such a way that provokes.
Making any sort of attack that provokes.
Moving out of a threatened square.
Using a magic Item that provokes.
Lighting a torch.
Stablizing anyone.
Using a skill that provokes.
Controling a frightened mount
Loading a crossbow
Standing up from prone.

So all that is left from the basics is a spell or spell-like ability.

Now I don't know if you can identify a spell-like or not they are cast but they aren't spells. But if they can't be then something has to differentiate between the two when its happening if one can be identified and one can't.

Could also be shock from having seen something or have been affected by an unseen spell(whether these exist is apparently a matter of debate, but they exist in all my games)


Shallow has said there is RAW contradiction. Most people consider the rules to be RAI>RAW, especially when dev intent is mentioned. The devs have stated their intent, even though they did not put it into errata or an FAQ. If they do so we already know Shallow's position will most likely not be supported.

I see nothing else to argue/debate about. If the devs word is not good for him enough then neither is ours.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:

Shallow has said there is RAW contradiction. Most people consider the rules to be RAI>RAW, especially when dev intent is mentioned. The devs have stated their intent, even though they did not put it into errata or an FAQ. If they do so we already know Shallow's position will most likely not be supported.

I see nothing else to argue/debate about. If the devs word is not good for him enough then neither is ours.

There is RAW contradiction and 8 people have FAQ'd the thread. The problem now is this supposed "visual effects during spellcasting" that is being used to justify it. We are all aware of the part about Counterspelling. The opposing side is trying to argue a justification that isn't there.

Silver Crusade

Alitan wrote:

You continue to fail to distinguish between 'see the spell being cast' and seeing spell components, which are not the spell.

Some of these things are not like the others; some of these things are kinda the same.

If you're going to pound the drum of RAW, you need to quit arguing an essentially RAI position when RAW fails to support your assertions.

Like I said earlier, the RAW backs me up and I will pound the RAW drum until the damn thing breaks.

What is happening is that you are refusing to see the connection with spellcasting and components as it proves you are wrong in your theory.

Still Spell (Metamagic)
You can cast spells without moving.
Benefit: A stilled spell can be cast with no somatic
components. Spells without somatic components are not
affected. A stilled spell uses up a spell slot one level higher
than the spell’s actual level.

Wouldn't it make sense to create a feat that hides spellcasting visuals, if there were such a thing?

The only inclination in the whole entire book that has anything to do with a "visual" of what happens during spellcasting is a somatic(which means movement) and material(using a material to cast a spell).

Nobody has to yet show anything in the book that talks about any other type of visual effect during the casting of a spell. The only thing that is mentioned is after the spell has been cast.


shallowsoul wrote:
Alitan wrote:

You continue to fail to distinguish between 'see the spell being cast' and seeing spell components, which are not the spell.

Some of these things are not like the others; some of these things are kinda the same.

If you're going to pound the drum of RAW, you need to quit arguing an essentially RAI position when RAW fails to support your assertions.

Like I said earlier, the RAW backs me up and I will pound the RAW drum until the damn thing breaks.

What is happening is that you are refusing to see the connection with spellcasting and components as it proves you are wrong in your theory.

Still Spell (Metamagic)
You can cast spells without moving.
Benefit: A stilled spell can be cast with no somatic
components. Spells without somatic components are not
affected. A stilled spell uses up a spell slot one level higher
than the spell’s actual level.

Wouldn't it make sense to create a feat that hides spellcasting visuals, if there were such a thing?

The only inclination in the whole entire book that has anything to do with a "visual" of what happens during spellcasting is a somatic(which means movement) and material(using a material to cast a spell).

Nobody has to yet show anything in the book that talks about any other type of visual effect during the casting of a spell. The only thing that is mentioned is after the spell has been cast.

RAW also says metamagic feats have no effect when it comes to identifying spells.

Basically what needs to be clarified is what was meant by "you must be able to clearly see the spell" in the spellcraft section.

It seems you don't like the PF interpretation.

3.5 Rules of the game wrote:


Spellcraft check to identify a spell as it is being cast whenever you can see the caster performing the spell's somatic components (if any) or when you can hear the spell's verbal components (if any).
3.5 spellcraft chart wrote:


15 + spell level Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.

That verbage was removed from Pathfinder. PF also says metamagic feats don't have any effect on identifying spells. Jason also said in his post that components are not a factor.

The RAW could probably be written better, but the intent is clear, after dev input.
Personally I think it would make more sense if the components had to be seen/heard, but PF/Paizo seems to want the components a non-factor.


Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Yeah, I'm pretty much saying the opposite, Shallow. Sorry.
Sorry mistook you for Hobbun.

What are you talking about?

My only contribution to this thread was quoting the RAW in regards to counterspelling and when it is done. I have not gotten into any discussion on what you can or cannot see when a spell is being cast.

Silver Crusade

Hobbun wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Yeah, I'm pretty much saying the opposite, Shallow. Sorry.
Sorry mistook you for Hobbun.

What are you talking about?

My only contribution to this thread was quoting the RAW in regards to counterspelling and when it is done. I have not gotten into any discussion on what you can or cannot see when a spell is being cast.

That is what I was thinking about at the time.

151 to 200 of 360 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Identifying a spell that's Stilled, Silenced and uses Eschew Materials. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.